The White House Trots Out a Veto Threat

Officials at the Office of Management and Budget raised concerns about language in the annual intelligence authorization bill that the House of Representatives is to take up beginning today. The Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal 2010 contains a provision that would require the president to inform more than 40 members of Congress - rather than just the so-called "Gang of Eight" under current practice- about covert actions taken overseas to influence events in other countries. The provision is an effort to wrest back Congressional oversight power that was ceded during the George W. Bush years when US intelligence agencies expanded their surveillance authority and engaged in questionable practices.

More from The Hill:

The White House said Thursday that if the intelligence authorization bill contains language broadening who the president must inform on covert activities, President Obama would be advised to veto the bill.

Currently, the White House is required by law to inform the "Gang of Eight," the leadership of both Houses and intelligence committees, of covert actions deemed too sensitive to disclose to full committees or legislative bodies.

Officials at the Office of Management and Budget, which distributed the statement of administration policy, also raised concerns about language in the bill that would require "the disclosure of internal executive branch legal advice and deliberations" on covert actions. OMB argues that provision would run afoul of the Constitution.

"Administrations of both political parties have long recognized the importance of protecting the confidentiality of the executive Branch's legal advice and deliberations," the statement said.

In defending the current "Gang of Eight" set-up, OMB noted that "there is a long tradition spanning decades of comity between the branches regarding intelligence matters, and the administration has emphasized the importance of providing timely and complete congressional notification, and using 'Gang of Eight' limitations only to meet extraordinary circumstances affecting the vital interests of the United States."

The language in the bill "undermines this fundamental compact between the Congress and the president," OMB said, calling the current agreement "an arrangement that for decades has balanced congressional oversight responsibilities with the President's responsibility to protect sensitive national security information."

The statement noted other areas of concern the administration has, which is not unusual in such statements, but warned that these two provisions would result in a recommended veto from the president's advisers. The OMB statement expresses optimism that administration officials will be able to reach an agreement to avoid the veto.

Earlier this evening, Marc Ambinder tweeted that Congressional sources had told him that the threat of the veto was sufficient to get the "offending" provision removed from the bill. Undoing Bush is proving harder in practice than in theory.

The Gang of Eight includes the leaders of each of the two parties from each of the two houses of Congress and the chairs and ranking members of the intelligence committees of each of the two houses of Congress. The group currently includes Speaker Pelosi, Minority Leader Boehner, Congressman Reyes (Chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence), Congressman Hoekstra (Ranking Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence), Senate Majority Leader Reid, Senate Minority Leader McConnell, Senator Feinstein (Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence) Senator Bond (Ranking Member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence).

The bill had cleared the House Intelligence Committee on a straight line party vote back on June 20, 2009. Other measures approved that aimed at strengthening Congressional oversight of the National Security Agency and the overall intelligence community include requiring the jobs of NSA director and general counsel to be subject to Senate confirmation. The bill would also establish the new position of NSA associate director for compliance and training so that the agency has a senior-level official focusing solely on ensuring that personnel comply with laws and court orders. The OMB is not objecting to these provisions. Their objections are to expanding the required disclosures beyond the Gang of Eight and to language in the bill that would require "the disclosure of internal executive branch legal advice and deliberations" on covert actions. Certainly it is clear that when it wants to, the White House knows how to play hardball.

And if you're keeping score, this marks the second trotting out of a veto threat. Administration officials, on the advice of the Pentagon, also recommended a veto of the defense authorization bill over proposed defense spending.



Display:


Carrying the torch (2.00 / 1)

This is why Bush, not Obama, will go down as one of the most policy-wise influential presidents in a generation. He has set the agenda for the next 20-30 years, with insurmountable national debt to fund banks, a multi-front war in the ME, a HSA for surveillance of the people, and usurping of power in the executive office.

The Republicans in Congress went along with it all, and the Democrats in office, with Obama holding court on all of the above, are doing no better as a majority in changing any of the above.


by Jerome Armstrong on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 08:10:55 AM EST

Re: Carrying the torch (none / 0)

... and to think we could have had another Clinton 8.
but Obama gave a speech against the AUMF that nobody remembers.
by usedmeat on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 11:18:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Carrying the torch (none / 0)

Yeah well, actions have consequences.  In light of all the mayhem that the AUMF produced, I don't think anyone's going to be shedding any tears about someone's thwarted ambition anytime soon.


When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?
by Jess81 on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 05:16:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Carrying the torch (none / 0)

I'm not convinced that Clinton would have been any different in this respect to be quite honest. Bush expanded the powers of the Presidency and it would take an extraordinary individual to rescind powers inherited. Obama and Clinton are establishment operatives and to think that they somehow represent a fundamental change in the way Washington works is a tad optimistic if not delusional. The change is on the margin, not a wholesale reworking of the system.

The President's advisers seem loathe to surrender some of the Presidential powers that Bush & co. expanded. Other than Kucinich and Gravel, it would have been foolhardy to expect a re-balancing of power between the branches.


Follow me on Twitter.
by Charles Lemos on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 08:11:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The White House Trots Out a Veto Threat (none / 0)

Great. At least when Rome had soldier-emperors they were good generals. But due to technological advances, good generals don't exist anymore as our system selects for mediocre careerists because that's what you need to run a modern army.

So consequently, our military overlords while usually competent in the field, make crap political leaders.


by MNPundit on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 12:51:25 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.